Well, according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dgrassland natural=grassland doesn’t fit to these elements – these areas are mostly covered by scrubs or small trees and not just some kind of grass. Landuse=forest is closer but I think wouldn’t be correct. I am practising both tags and I agree it is sometime difficult to distinguish between landuse=forest and natural=scrub.
Martin On 23 November 2015 at 10:59, Christoph Hormann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday 23 November 2015, colored stone wrote: > > I think this isn’t really an error. This estimation based on analyses > > of existing elements raba:id=1410 (currently classified as > > natural=heath) – the question was – “how would OSM mapper classify > > this element according to the satellite image”. More than 80% of this > > elements would be classified as natural:scrub, some of them as > > landuse=forest (sometimes it is very difficult to distinguish scrub > > from forest), very few as landuse=meadow (1410 are former > > agricultural areas now overgrowth). > > Actually the most likely alternative tagging would be natural=grassland, > that is in case of areas not dominated by woody vegetation, like ferns > or other herbaceous perennial plants, without active human > maintainence - the OSM tagging scheme is fairly insufficient here and > abuse of natural=scrub for grassland with scattered trees is very > common. > > In general clearly identifying scrub from imagery, even high resolution, > is rarely possible. So you ultimately you need ground knowledge to > properly map this. It is up to the local community to decide if they > prefer to map based on local surveying on a clean slate or if they want > to do this building upon a less precide mapping imported. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
